- A student argues that the city should build more protected bike lanes near schools. The claim is that protected lanes would make commuting safer and encourage healthier habits. The student gives reasons: cars move quickly during drop-off, many students already bike but feel unsafe, and protected lanes reduce conflicts between bikes and cars. As evidence, the student references local traffic reports showing that most near-school crashes happen at busy intersections and mentions that cities with protected lanes report fewer cyclist injuries. The student considers a counterclaim: bike lanes cost money and may remove parking. The student responds that safety improvements prevent costly accidents and that the city can begin with the most dangerous routes first.
A concluding sentence is drafted below:
"In conclusion, protected bike lanes are a good idea because biking is fun."
What is the main weakness of this conclusion?
Answer: It is too vague and does not reflect the argument's key reasons and evidence about safety, health, and cost concerns.
The argument was built on specific reasons and evidence: cars speeding during drop-off, students who bike but feel unsafe, fewer bike-car conflicts, traffic reports about dangerous intersections, and cities that saw fewer injuries. A strong conclusion should tie those points together. Instead, the drafted sentence just calls bike lanes "a good idea because biking is fun," which is too vague and ignores the safety, health, and cost reasoning the writer actually presented. That is why the answer about vagueness and missing key reasons and evidence is correct.
The choice about a prediction on future traffic laws is wrong because the conclusion never mentions traffic laws or the future—it simply stays too general. The choice about siding with the counterclaim is wrong because the sentence says nothing about cost or parking; it does not adopt the counterclaim at all. The choice about relying on personal feelings points to something real ("fun" is a preference), but that is only one symptom—the deeper problem is that the whole conclusion fails to reflect the argument's specific reasons and evidence, so it is not the best description of the main weakness.
- A student argues that the school should offer a wider variety of nonfiction books in the classroom libraries. The claim is that more nonfiction choices will increase reading engagement and build background knowledge. Reasons: many students prefer real-world topics, nonfiction supports science and social studies learning, and choice motivates students to read more. Evidence: the student cites a class reading log showing some students read more when they find high-interest topics (sports, true survival stories, inventions) and notes that nonfiction text features (headings, captions) help readers understand complex ideas. The student addresses a counterclaim that fiction is more enjoyable for many readers by arguing that expanding nonfiction does not remove fiction; it simply adds options.
Does the conclusion below effectively follow from and support the argument?
"In conclusion, because nonfiction helps students learn about the world and increases motivation without replacing fiction, expanding nonfiction options in classroom libraries is a practical way to strengthen reading across subjects."
Answer: Yes; it restates the claim with development and synthesizes the main reasons while staying within the essay's scope.
The right answer is the one saying the conclusion restates the claim with development and pulls the main reasons together while staying on topic. Look at the conclusion: it names the claim ("expanding nonfiction options in classroom libraries"), blends the key reasons (learning about the world, boosting motivation), answers the counterclaim ("without replacing fiction"), and shows why it matters ("strengthen reading across subjects"). That is exactly what a strong conclusion does.
The choice claiming it drifts to grading home-reading pages is wrong—the conclusion never mentions grades or pages; it only sums up ideas already argued. The choice saying it uses slang and an informal tone is wrong because the sentence is formal and clearly restates the claim about expanding nonfiction. The choice saying it just copies the thesis word-for-word is wrong because the conclusion combines several reasons into one new statement instead of repeating a single sentence, so it does add synthesis and closure.
- A student argues that the city should build more protected bike lanes near middle and high schools. The claim is that protected lanes will make commuting safer and increase bike use. The student gives evidence: a local survey found many students would bike if they felt safer; protected lanes separate bikes from cars; and more biking could reduce traffic congestion during drop-off. The student considers a counterclaim that bike lanes are expensive and responds that fewer car trips can reduce road wear and that grants are available for safety projects.
Does the following conclusion effectively follow from and support the argument?
Conclusion: "In conclusion, protected bike lanes near schools are a practical safety investment because they address students' concerns, can reduce traffic during drop-off, and may cost less over time when we factor in grants and reduced road strain."
Answer: Yes. It restates the claim in fresh words, pulls together the key reasons and evidence, and answers the cost concern without adding unrelated ideas.
The best answer says the conclusion restates the claim in fresh words, ties the reasons together, and handles the cost concern without new ideas. That is what a strong conclusion does here: it calls the lanes a "practical safety investment," links safety, drop-off traffic, and cost, and answers the expense counterclaim with grants and reduced road strain—all points already argued.
The public-bus-routes answer is wrong because the conclusion never mentions buses; it stays fully on bike lanes, so it introduces nothing new. The answer saying it only echoes the safety point is wrong because the conclusion clearly names all three reasons—students' concerns, drop-off traffic, and cost over time—so it does synthesize them rather than leaving reasons out. The answer about eliminating accidents is wrong because the conclusion hedges with "can" and "may" and calls the lanes a practical investment; it never promises perfect safety, so it matches the evidence instead of overstating it.
A good conclusion matches the argument's scope, restates the claim in new words, and pulls the reasons together for closure—only the first choice describes a conclusion that does all three.
- A student argues that the school should create a quiet zone in the library during lunch for students who need a calm place to read or work. The claim is that a quiet zone would support student well-being and learning. Evidence includes: some students feel overwhelmed by noisy cafeterias; a calmer space can reduce stress; and students could use the time to finish assignments, which might lower homework loads. The student addresses a counterclaim that the library is for everyone and responds that only part of the library would be designated quiet, with clear expectations and staff supervision.
What is the best concluding sentence to add that would strengthen the ending by providing a clear call to action?
Answer: Therefore, school leaders should test a marked quiet zone in part of the library during lunch for a month, then review student feedback to decide whether it becomes permanent.
A strong concluding sentence gives readers a clear call to action: it tells them who should act and exactly what to do next. The best choice does this by naming school leaders as the actors, recommending a trial quiet zone in part of the library during lunch, setting a timeframe of a month, and adding a next step of reviewing student feedback. It matches the argument's scope by proposing a trial rather than demanding a permanent change, and it respects the counterclaim by keeping the zone to only part of the library. The choice about silence being golden only makes a vague wish that everyone be quieter; it never recommends a specific action tied to the quiet-zone proposal. The choice about the principal is so buried in hedges—'if,' 'perhaps,' 'might,' 'maybe,' 'someday'—that it never actually urges anyone to act, so it fails as a call to action. The choice listing books, computers, chairs, and tables only describes what the library already has; it neither concludes the argument nor calls for anything to happen. Only one option pairs a confident, specific recommendation with the argument's ideas, so it is the strongest conclusion.
- An 8th-grade student writes an argument:
Claim: The school should replace single-use plastic water bottles in vending machines with refillable bottle stations and encourage reusable bottles.
Reasons and evidence: The writer explains that single-use plastics create waste and notes that the custodial staff reported large amounts of plastic bottles in trash cans after lunch. The writer adds that refill stations can save money over time because the school would buy fewer bottled drinks, and they cite a quote from the principal about rising waste-hauling costs. Counterclaim: Some students prefer the convenience of buying a bottle. The writer responds that refill stations can be placed near the cafeteria and gym for easy access.
The student's conclusion is: "In conclusion, plastic exists, and people should recycle more."
What is the main weakness of this conclusion?
Answer: It is too vague and does not restate the specific claim or connect to the reasons and evidence presented.
The right answer notices that this conclusion is too vague: it never restates the actual proposal—replacing vending-machine bottles with refill stations—and it never ties back to the waste, cost-savings, and convenience points made in the body. Instead it drifts to a general comment that "plastic exists" and that people should recycle, which isn't the argument at all.
The choice about banning all plastic products is wrong because the conclusion doesn't propose banning anything; it just wanders off-topic, so the vagueness—not a new claim—is the real problem.
The choice about leaning on the principal's quote and cost figures is wrong because the conclusion contains no quote, no statistics, and no repeated evidence at all—so it can't be criticized for overusing them.
The choice about the convenience counterclaim is wrong because the conclusion never mentions convenience or buying bottles; it doesn't restate the writer's position, but it also doesn't focus on the counterclaim.
A strong conclusion would restate the refill-station proposal and pull together the specific reasons and evidence to bring the argument to a clear close.
- An argumentative paragraph claims that the school should replace most single-use plastic water bottles sold on campus with refill stations and reusable bottle options. The writer's reasons include: plastic waste often ends up in local waterways; refill stations can save families money over time; and students are more likely to drink water when refilling is convenient. The writer addresses a counterclaim that stations are expensive by noting that local businesses sometimes sponsor them and that maintenance costs are predictable.
A student writes this conclusion: "Therefore, our school must ban all plastic everywhere in the entire city because it is always harmful."
What is the main problem with this conclusion?
Answer: It overgeneralizes beyond the argument's scope by expanding from school bottle sales to banning all plastic in the entire city.
A strong conclusion should stay inside the boundaries of what the argument actually supported. This paragraph argued something specific: the school should swap single-use bottles for refill stations and reusable options, and it backed that up with reasons about waterways, saving money, and convenience. The best answer names the real problem—the conclusion leaps from school bottle sales all the way to banning all plastic in the entire city and calls plastic 'always harmful.' The evidence never reached that far, so the conclusion overreaches.
The choice calling it too vague is wrong, because this conclusion is not vague at all; it makes a huge, very specific claim the argument simply did not earn. The choice about student athletic schedules is wrong, because the conclusion stays focused on plastic and never mentions schedules, so nothing off-topic is actually introduced. The choice about repeating the thesis word-for-word is wrong, because the conclusion does not echo the original claim about bottles and refill stations—it says something new and far broader instead. Only the overgeneralization answer identifies the true flaw: the conclusion's scope stretches well past what the evidence allows.
- A student argues that the town should add more public water bottle filling stations in parks. The claim is that filling stations improve health and reduce plastic waste. Evidence includes: people are more likely to drink water when it is convenient; reusable bottles reduce single-use plastic; and parks get crowded during sports seasons, so access matters. The student addresses a counterclaim that the stations may be vandalized and responds that durable designs exist and regular maintenance is already part of park upkeep. Which conclusion does NOT follow from the argument because it introduces a new, unrelated claim?
Answer: In conclusion, the town should install more filling stations, and it should also expand its recycling pickup schedule so residents can dispose of waste more often.
A strong conclusion should pull together the claims and evidence the writer already presented—here, health benefits, less plastic waste, convenient access, and the response to vandalism concerns. The best answer adds a call to expand the recycling pickup schedule. Even though recycling sounds loosely related to reducing waste, the argument never discusses trash collection or how often residents dispose of waste, so this conclusion introduces a brand-new claim that the body paragraphs never supported. That is why it does NOT follow. The choice about making it easier to choose water and reducing bottle trash follows because it restates the health and plastic-waste benefits already argued. The choice about durable stations being maintained like other equipment follows because it directly ties back to the vandalism counterclaim and the maintenance point. The choice calling filling stations a sensible improvement for convenience and sustainability follows because it summarizes the two main benefits without adding anything new. Only the recycling-schedule conclusion reaches beyond the argument's actual topics.
- Read the argument and two possible conclusions.
Argument (summary):
Claim: Schools should teach a short financial literacy unit in 8th grade.
Reasons/evidence: The writer says students soon make real financial choices (saving, debit cards, online purchases). They cite examples of common scams and note that the state consumer office reports teens are increasingly targeted online. The writer also argues that budgeting skills support families and reduce future debt problems. Counterclaim: Some people say there is no time in the schedule. The writer responds that a short unit could fit into math or advisory without replacing core content.
Conclusion 1: "Given that students already face real financial decisions and online scams, and because a brief unit can fit into existing classes, adding financial literacy in 8th grade is a practical way to prepare students for adulthood."
Conclusion 2: "In conclusion, schools should teach financial literacy, and they should also require uniforms to reduce bullying."
Which conclusion better supports the argument?
Answer: Conclusion 1, because it restates the claim and ties directly to the reasons and the counterclaim the writer discussed.
The stronger conclusion restates the claim and pulls together the very ideas the writer built the argument on. The winning choice credits Conclusion 1 for tying back to the reasons—real financial decisions, online scams—and to the counterclaim about scheduling, then ending on why the unit matters. That is exactly the job of a conclusion: closing the argument you actually made.
The choice praising Conclusion 2 for adding a new school improvement idea is wrong because a conclusion should finish the existing argument, not open a fresh topic like uniforms that has no supporting evidence. The choice claiming a closing is more convincing when it introduces several new topics misunderstands the purpose of a conclusion—new topics at the end leave readers with unsupported claims. The remaining choice praises Conclusion 1 for the wrong reason: a good conclusion synthesizes the main points, it does not copy every reason word for word, so it describes a weakness as if it were a strength. Only the choice that credits Conclusion 1 for restating the claim and connecting to the reasons and counterclaim is correct.
- An argumentative speech claims the town should build more bike lanes near middle and high schools. The speaker argues that bike lanes improve safety by separating bikes from cars, encourage exercise that benefits health, and can reduce traffic congestion during drop-off and pick-up times. The speaker addresses a counterclaim that bike lanes are too expensive by noting that grants and phased construction can lower costs.
Which conclusion best includes an appropriate call to action that follows from the argument?
Answer: Given the safety, health, and traffic benefits, the town council should apply for transportation grants and begin a phased plan to add protected bike lanes around schools this year.
The best conclusion pulls together all three reasons the speaker gave—safety, health, and reduced traffic—and ends with an action that matches those points: applying for grants and building bike lanes in phases. This call to action even answers the cost counterclaim, so it truly follows from the argument.
The crossing-guards-and-speed-limits option mentions safety but then calls for something the speech never argued for; guards and speed limits are not bike lanes, so it drifts off the claim. The require-every-student-to-ride option names health and traffic benefits but demands an extreme, unsupported rule the argument never suggested, overreaching far beyond the evidence. The parking-garage-and-bus-routes option starts from the bike-and-car idea but ends by proposing solutions that abandon bike lanes entirely, so it does not support the speaker's position. Only the phased bike-lane plan restates the claim, synthesizes every reason, and offers an action that logically fits the case the speaker built.
- A student writes an essay arguing that 8th graders should learn basic first aid in health class. The claim is that first-aid skills prepare students for real emergencies. Reasons include: accidents happen at school and at home, quick action can prevent injuries from getting worse, and learning first aid builds confidence and responsibility. Evidence includes examples such as nosebleeds, minor burns, and allergic reactions, plus a statement from the school nurse that students often do not know what to do while waiting for an adult. The student addresses a counterclaim that teachers are not medical professionals by proposing that certified trainers or the nurse could lead the unit.
Which conclusion best synthesizes the argument without adding new unrelated ideas?
Answer: Because emergencies can happen anywhere, teaching basic first aid in health class would help students respond safely, reduce common injuries, and build responsibility, especially if certified staff lead the unit.
The best conclusion pulls the whole essay together without introducing anything new. It restates the claim (teach first aid in health class), synthesizes the three reasons (respond safely, reduce injuries, build responsibility), answers the counterclaim (certified staff lead the unit), and explains why it matters (emergencies can happen anywhere). That is exactly what a strong concluding statement does.
The choice about adding physical education and healthier cafeteria lunches drifts into new topics the essay never argued, so it fails the "no new unrelated ideas" test. The choice demanding that every student in the country master advanced medical procedures overstates the scope: the essay only proposed a basic unit in one health class, not nationwide advanced training. The choice saying first aid "probably would not matter" undermines the argument the writer just built with the nurse's statement and real examples, and it contradicts the claim instead of supporting it. Only the first choice stays focused, confident, and true to the reasons and evidence presented.
- A student argues that the school should replace most paper flyers with a weekly digital newsletter. The claim is that a digital newsletter improves communication while reducing waste. Reasons: paper flyers get lost, printing costs money, and families can translate or enlarge digital text more easily. Evidence: the student notes that the office printed thousands of pages last semester, and a parent survey showed many families prefer receiving updates by email. The student addresses a counterclaim that some families have limited internet access by proposing that the office keep a small number of printed copies available on request.
The student's conclusion draft is below:
"Therefore, the school should replace most paper flyers with a weekly digital newsletter because paper flyers get lost, printing costs money, and families can translate or enlarge digital text more easily."
How should this conclusion be revised to be more effective?
Answer: Reword the ending to draw the benefits together and give the argument closure, so the point about keeping a few printed copies for families who still need them fits in.
A strong conclusion should do more than list the reasons again—it should pull them together and bring the argument to a close. The best revision reshapes the ending so the benefits (less waste, lower cost, easier access) are unified, and it can nod to the compromise of keeping some printed copies. This shows the argument developed and connects back to the evidence.
Adding a brand-new reason about the printing schedule is wrong because a conclusion should grow out of ideas the body already presented, not introduce material the reader has never seen. Restating the introduction in the same wording is wrong because repeating the thesis word-for-word shows no development and never synthesizes how the evidence supports the claim. Keeping only the strongest single reason is wrong because dropping the other reasons and the evidence weakens the argument instead of tying it together. Only one choice both restates the claim in a developed way and gives the argument a meaningful close.
- A student argues that the school should adopt a "quiet zone" in the library during lunch. The student claims it would help students who need a calm space, improve focus for those catching up on work, and reduce conflicts caused by loud group behavior in a small area. The student addresses a counterclaim that lunch should be social by proposing that only part of the library be designated quiet while another area stays available for conversation.
Which conclusion best synthesizes the reasons while acknowledging the balanced solution?
Answer: In conclusion, the school should create a quiet zone in part of the library at lunch so students who need calm can focus and feel comfortable, while others can still socialize in a separate area.
The best conclusion ties together all three reasons—a calm space, better focus, and fewer conflicts—and honors the compromise the student offered: a quiet section AND a separate area for talking. It restates the claim with real development, not just repetition.
The choice about the library holding many books and welcoming everyone stays too vague. It never names the quiet-zone plan or connects the three reasons, so it offers no real synthesis or closure.
The choice about making the entire library completely silent ignores the counterclaim. The student deliberately kept a social area, so demanding total silence contradicts the balanced solution the argument was built on.
The choice about strictly limiting how many students may enter picks only one reason—reducing conflicts—and adds a new plan the student never argued for. A conclusion should follow from the reasons given, not raise a fresh, unsupported idea.
Only one option restates the claim, unites all three reasons, and preserves both the quiet and social spaces, so it is the single best conclusion.
- A student argues that middle school students should have a short unit on media literacy (how to evaluate online information) in English class. The claim is that media literacy helps students avoid misinformation and become responsible digital citizens. Reasons: students use social media for news, false information spreads quickly, and evaluating sources supports research skills in other classes. Evidence: the student mentions examples of misleading headlines, explains basic checks (author, date, evidence, cross-checking), and notes that teachers often see unreliable sources in projects. The student addresses a counterclaim that there is not enough time in the curriculum by arguing that the unit could replace a small portion of repeated test-prep and would strengthen reading skills.
What should be added to the conclusion below to strengthen it?
"Thus, media literacy should be taught in English class."
Answer: A synthesis of the main reasons (misinformation, source evaluation, cross-curricular research benefits) and a reminder that the unit can fit into the schedule.
The current conclusion only restates the claim, so it needs to pull the whole argument together. The best addition brings back the three main reasons—fighting misinformation, learning to evaluate sources, and building research skills for other classes—and reminds readers that the unit fits the schedule by replacing some test-prep. That gives the argument closure and answers the time counterclaim.
Adding a new point about starting school later introduces an idea the body never argued, so it drifts off-topic instead of wrapping up. Simply repeating the misleading-headline examples in more detail belongs in the body; a conclusion should synthesize evidence, not just restate it. Naming only one reason and dropping source evaluation and research skills makes the ending weaker than the argument itself, leaving out points the writer already proved. Only the synthesis choice both revisits the full argument and resolves the counterclaim, so it is the single best answer.
- A student argues that the school should create a student-run "lost and found" tracking system. The claim is that organizing lost items better will save time and money. Reasons: students lose jackets and water bottles often, the current lost and found is messy, and a simple check-in system (like labeling and logging items) would help items get returned faster. Evidence: the student notes that many unclaimed items are donated each quarter and that other schools that sorted items by category returned more belongings. The student addresses a counterclaim that managing the system will take time by proposing rotating volunteers during advisory period.
A conclusion draft is shown below:
"In conclusion, the school should create a student-run lost and found tracking system. The school should create a student-run lost and found tracking system."
What is the biggest problem with this conclusion?
Answer: It states the position twice without pulling the reasons together or showing readers why the proposed solution actually matters to them.
The best answer sees that this conclusion says the same thing twice and adds nothing else. A strong conclusion should tie the reasons together—frequent losses, a messy system, and faster returns—and remind readers why the idea matters: it saves time and money. This draft gives no synthesis and no closure, so its real weakness is empty repetition that never shows why the solution matters.
The choice about drifting into donating clothing to charity is wrong because the draft never introduces any new idea at all—it just echoes itself. The choice about a flat, casual note-taking tone is wrong because the sentence is formally worded, not slangy; repeating yourself is not the same as sounding casual. The choice about leaning on the counterclaim is wrong because the draft mentions neither the volunteer counterclaim nor the benefits—it barely says anything beyond the repeated position. Only the answer about restating without synthesizing captures what truly goes wrong here.
- A student writes an argumentative essay claiming that the school should create a homework-free weekend once a month. The student argues that (1) students report higher stress during long stretches of assignments, and a monthly break would support mental health; (2) teachers could assign longer-term projects that encourage planning instead of nightly worksheets; and (3) families would have more time for responsibilities and community events. The essay also addresses a counterclaim: some people worry students will fall behind, but the student notes that one weekend per month is limited and could be paired with clear project deadlines to maintain learning.
Which conclusion best follows from and supports the argument?
Answer: Therefore, a monthly homework-free weekend is a practical way to lower stress, build stronger planning habits, and give families more shared time together.
A strong conclusion restates the essay's claim, ties the writer's reasons together, and stays confident about what the body actually showed. The best answer does all three: it restates the monthly homework-free weekend proposal and pulls together the essay's reasons—less stress, stronger planning habits, and more family time—matching the confident case the writer built.
The choice saying homework can feel stressful and students do not enjoy it is too vague; it never restates the specific proposal or gathers the reasons, so it fails to sum up the argument. The choice urging the school to replace homework entirely with long-term group projects introduces a brand-new, more extreme idea the essay never argued, so it does not follow from the body. The choice claiming a monthly break would leave most students behind contradicts the essay's own point: the writer answered that worry by showing limited weekends plus clear deadlines maintain learning, so this conclusion works against the argument instead of supporting it. Only the answer that restates the proposal and unites its reasons both follows from and reinforces the writer's case.
- A student argues that the school should allow students to use digital planners provided by the district instead of requiring paper planners. The student's reasons include: digital planners can send reminders to reduce missed assignments; they are harder to lose than paper planners; and they can be updated quickly when schedules change. The student addresses a counterclaim about increased screen time by suggesting that the planner app be limited to school-related features and used briefly at set times.
The student's conclusion is weak:
Weak conclusion: "In conclusion, planners are helpful."
How should this conclusion be revised to better follow from and support the argument?
Answer: In conclusion, digital planners should replace required paper planners because reminders, easy updates, and fewer lost materials help students stay organized, and limited school-only use can address screen-time concerns.
A strong conclusion should restate the claim, pull the argument's specific reasons together, and respond to the counterclaim with confident language. The best answer does all of this: it clearly restates that digital planners should replace required paper planners, synthesizes the three reasons (reminders, quick updates, fewer lost materials), and answers the screen-time counterclaim with limited school-only use. It provides real closure.
One option sounds confident but never synthesizes the argument's actual reasons—it relies on vague ideas like planners being 'more modern' and guesses about what teachers think, which were never part of the argument. Another option drifts off-topic: it shifts to homework loads and testing schedules, a new argument the body never made, so it fails to follow from the reasons given. The last option undermines the whole case by hedging with 'might,' 'could possibly,' and 'either way' after the student built evidence-based reasons; a conclusion should sound sure, not undecided. Only the correct answer both restates the claim and ties the specific evidence together.
- An 8th-grade student writes an argument that the school should create a weekly "homework help hour" after school. The student claims it would improve grades and reduce stress. As reasons, the student explains that many students do not have quiet spaces at home, some cannot afford tutoring, and teachers could rotate supervising so students get reliable help. As evidence, the student cites a student survey where 62% reported struggling with homework at least twice a week, and notes that a nearby middle school started a similar program and reported fewer missing assignments. The student also addresses a counterclaim: some students have sports or family responsibilities after school. The student responds that the program would be optional and offered one consistent day each week so students can plan.
Which conclusion best follows from and supports the argument?
Answer: Therefore, our school should pilot a weekly homework help hour, because it provides equitable academic support, can reduce missing work, and remains flexible by being optional for students with after-school commitments.
The best conclusion restates the claim (pilot a homework help hour) and pulls the argument's own reasons together: it names equitable academic support (quiet spaces, affordable help), reduced missing work (the survey and the nearby school's results), and flexibility that answers the counterclaim about after-school commitments. It stays confident and matched to the evidence.
The option about homework being difficult and school feeling stressful only repeats vague feelings; it never synthesizes the specific reasons or evidence the writer built, so it doesn't truly support the argument. The option adding a longer lunch and vending machines introduces brand-new proposals the body never argued, so it wanders off the established claim. The option saying the school should 'probably' try it and that it 'may or may not' matter hedges at the exact moment the writer should sound sure—undercutting a case backed by 62% survey data and a successful nearby program. Only the confident, evidence-based restatement both follows from and supports the argument.
- A student writes an argument that the school should start a peer-tutoring program during study hall. The student claims it will improve learning for both tutors and students being helped. Reasons and evidence include: students often understand explanations from peers; teachers can recommend tutors based on strong grades; and other schools reported fewer failing grades after starting tutoring. The student addresses a counterclaim that tutoring could distract from study hall and responds that tutoring would be optional and supervised with clear expectations.
Which conclusion best follows from the argument?
Answer: Given the evidence that peer explanations help learning, that supervised tutoring can be organized effectively, and that other schools saw academic gains, our school should pilot a peer-tutoring program during study hall next semester.
The best conclusion pulls together every reason the argument actually made—peers explain ideas well, tutoring can be organized with supervision, and other schools saw academic gains—and then restates the claim with a clear, confident recommendation to pilot the program during study hall. That is exactly what a strong conclusion does: it synthesizes the evidence and provides closure without adding anything new.
The option that only says tutoring is 'generally a good idea' stays too vague; it never ties back to the specific reasons or firmly supports the claim. The option about a quieter lunchroom, calmer hallways, and new friendships fails because it promises benefits the argument never discussed—it does not follow from the evidence presented. The option that sends tutoring to the library after school twice a week contradicts the argument's own plan, which was for optional, supervised tutoring during study hall. Only the recommendation that matches the argument's evidence and stated plan works as the conclusion.
- Read the argument and choose the best revision to improve the conclusion.
Argument (summary):
Claim: Students should be allowed to redo major tests for partial credit.
Reasons/evidence: The writer argues that retakes promote learning because students review mistakes; they cite a teacher who reported higher scores on later units after allowing corrections. The writer also says retakes reduce test anxiety, and they reference a counseling office note that stress can harm performance. Counterclaim: Some say retakes are unfair to students who studied the first time. The writer responds that partial credit and required error analysis keep standards high while still supporting growth.
Weak conclusion: "So that is why retakes are good."
Which revised conclusion best follows from and supports the argument?
Answer: In conclusion, allowing partial-credit retakes on major tests would help students learn from their mistakes and manage anxiety while still staying fair through required corrections, so the school should adopt a clear retake policy.
The best conclusion pulls the whole argument together: it restates the claim about partial-credit retakes, ties in both main reasons (learning from mistakes and managing anxiety), answers the fairness objection through required corrections, and ends with a confident call to adopt a retake policy. That is exactly what the evidence supports.
The choice that makes every test optional and lets students skip grading overreaches—the writer argued for retakes with partial credit, not for eliminating grades, so its recommendation goes far past the evidence. The choice that suddenly demands less homework drifts into a new, unrelated topic; a strong conclusion should close the argument that was actually made, not open a fresh issue. The choice packed with 'might possibly' and 'hard to say' undercuts the case at the very moment it should sound sure, hedging away all the evidence the writer built. Only the first choice stays on scope, uses the evidence, and closes with earned confidence.
- A student writes an essay claiming that the school should provide a later start time for students one day a week (for example, Wednesdays). The student supports the claim with reasons: many adolescents need more sleep for healthy brain function; students who are less tired participate more and make fewer careless mistakes; and a single later start day would still allow after-school activities most days. The student addresses a counterclaim about bus schedules by suggesting the district pilot the change with one grade level first.
Which conclusion is the weakest because it introduces new, unrelated arguments?
Answer: In conclusion, a later start day would help rested students focus, and the school should also lengthen lunch periods and shorten the total school year to lower stress.
A strong conclusion should pull together the reasons the essay actually developed—more sleep, better participation, fewer careless mistakes, and a pilot to handle bus schedules—without dragging in brand-new topics.
The best answer begins on topic by mentioning rested students, but then adds arguments about lengthening lunch periods and shortening the school year. Those ideas were never raised or supported in the body, and new claims like these belong in body paragraphs, not introduced for the first time in a conclusion. That makes this ending the weakest.
The choice about alertness, learning, and a pilot program stays tied to the essay's reasons and its plan for the scheduling counterclaim, so it follows logically. The choice calling a weekly later start a 'realistic compromise' restates the claim and reinforces that routines stay mostly intact—exactly what the essay argued. The choice connecting sleep evidence to classroom performance synthesizes the main points and keeps its scope honest by calling it a 'small schedule adjustment.' Each of these three summarizes the argument instead of adding something new.
